|
BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNIVERSAL-MCAMUSIC PUBLISHING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
Nos. 01-01160/51/66/58/41/37/26/15/04; 01055/52/40/16;
00986/17/14; 00873/40/38; 00795—Todd J. Campbell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: October 8, 2009
Decided and Filed: October 21, 2009
Before: MARTIN, GUY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Ten Universal-affiliated defendants, all record and music publishing companies, have appealed a second time from the district court’s decision to deny the defendants’ request that attorney fees be imposed as a condition of granting plaintiffs’ motions to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the twenty cases at issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). We remanded the matter after the first consolidated appeal “for a more detailed order specifically addressing the [defendants’] request for reasonable terms and conditions relating to the dismissal of [plaintiffs’] complaints.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publishing, Inc., 481 F.3d 926, 927-28 (6th Cir. 2007). Reviewing the orders entered after remand, we reject defendants’ contention that the district court abused its discretion either by failing to provide specific reasons for its decision, or by deciding not to impose attorney fees as a condition of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). The judgments are affirmed.
|
INDIANA STATE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS AND HOD CARRIERS PENSION AND WELFARE FUND, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor-Appellant, v. OMNICARE, INC.; JOEL F. GEMUNDER; DAVID W. FROESEL, JR.; CHERYL D. HODGES; EDWARD L. HUTTON; and SANDRA E. LANEY, Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
No. 06-00026—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.
Argued: September 18, 2008
Decided and Filed: October 21, 2009
Before: DAUGHTREY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; MILLS, District Judge.
MILLS, District Judge. Seizing on a few vague statements from management, the plaintiffs try to turn bad corporate news into a securities class action.
Because the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) forbids such alchemy, we generally affirm the district court’s dismissal, although we reverse its disposition regarding the claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k.